Yeah, obviously human resources goes with management — that is just as true in American English as in French. But my point is: Pécresse here at least is alluding to some traditional academic values, and is trying to avoid precisely the interpretation you’re proposing. Hence she says things like: “Il n’y a pas de logique comptable derrière cette évolution statutaire, il y a une logique d’équité.” (“Behind this regulatory change lies a logic, not of accounting, but of equity.”) And she frequently alludes to peer review, to the “freedom” that in her view comes with RCE, and so on.

I’m not saying we should take her words at face value — I certainly wouldn’t argue that her policies weren’t pro-business, pro-auditing, and fairly unfriendly to the traditional humanities and human sciences. I just think it’s important at the level of discourse that she was at least aware of the interpretation you’re proposing, and was trying to evade it!

Basically, I’m trying to insist on this distinction: Pécresse may in practice have acted as if “management” was the university, but what she said was at least trying to give lip service to the traditional view. You see what I mean?